Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

Status
Not open for further replies.
This will get you up to date on floods in the valley.

You will note they had lots of them.
Nothing to do with man made global warming though.


http://www.comoxvalleyrd.ca/assets/Governance/Bylaws/Planning/SchedB_DesignBrief.pdf

Take the data from page 21 and compare that to what we just got. How about all the floods we have had in the last 10 to 20 years. Seems to me we have had lots of 20 year floods. How does that work? The very words of once every 20 years means something. I don't have time to match all the numbers this weekend as I'm going out of town. You seem sure of your self so gather up the data and post it and I will graph it and we will see. Did you notice that this storm also brought us a record high temp of 14.2 for Dec 9 and the old record was 8.3 back in 1962?

Could all this be telling us something or is this just a coincidence. I don't know about you but I'm getting tired of all these events I'm seeing with new records and damage. It sure looks like climate change to me.
 
No, you missed it. Real science as you say tops all.
Real science is shown, you cannot believe it.
Tidal guage is not wrong. IPPC projections not so much.
I never said I don't trust the real science, I said I don't trust 99% of the stuff you post. I have check out way more then I should have and it all comes back as crap. If some data about Sydney is relevant to Sydney then so be it. Just quit the BS about your denial of accelerated global sea level rise. Your not convincing anyone with that argument when the science is clear and it's a problem that we will have to deal with. Hey it's just money and lot's of it thanks to your side.....
 
Courtenay Floods Over – No More Flooding Anticipated

Posted on November 17, 2009 by ComoxValleyGuide — 1 Comment ↓
The flooding in Courtenay has subsided, and there is no immediate risk for further floods. The following is an excerpt from the City of Courtenay website:

Was that a once every 20 year flood? How about the flood we had in January 2010?? Was that another once every 20 year flood? so many once every 20 year flood and now a once every 100 year flood. Whats next a once every 200 year flood?

Like I said.... the data is there if you want to prove your point.
Back Sunday night.........
 
Sydney Sea levels rising at just 6.5cm per century. Peak-panic is behind us.

In The Australian Bob Carter compares the long term tide gauge record in Sydney with projections, and exposes the exorbitant cost of insurance for alarmist sea level forecasts. The good news is that it appears councils are waking up, and “peak-sea-level-panic” is behind us.

Sea-level alarmism has passed high tide and is at last declining. With luck, empirical sanity will soon prevail over modelling.

After years of research it turns out that talking about “global” sea level rise is nearly meaningless to real people who live in one place. The ocean rise varies locally from beach to beach from as little as 5cm per century to as much as 16cm per century. The variations are mostly due to different rates of land subsiding or rising.

More importantly, the rate of rise was either the same or was even faster before World War II when CO2 levels were “safe”.


Figure 5: Comparison of decadal rates of change over historical record. Analysis based on relative 20-y moving average water level time series. | Watson 2011

Fort Denison in Sydney has one of the longest running continuous records, starting in 1886, and finally local councils are realizing that they need to use the local data to plan ahead, not the IPCC’s one-size global fear index.

For example, measurements at Sydney between 2005 and 2014 show the tide gauge site is sinking at a rate of 0.49mm/yr, leaving just 0.16mm/yr of the overall relative rise as representing global sea-level change. Indeed, the rate of rise at Fort Denison, and globally, has been decreasing for the past 50 years.

Let’s cheer, Shoalhaven Shire Council shifted the sea-level-panic-index back a notch, rejecting the worst case IPCC scenario, settling for a slightly less scary one, and importantly, used the local Fort Denison record and ruled out “satellite or model-generated sea-level estimates until their accuracy is guaranteed”.

When councils plan for scenarios that never happen, the pointless insurance can cost some unlucky home owners tens of thousands — in one shire – $40,000 each.

Figures from RP Data property information specialists show that between 2011 and 2014, Eurobodalla property values suffered a 5.3 per cent loss in value compared with increases of 4.9 per cent and 7.3 per cent for neighbouring coastal shires that didn’t have equivalent restrictive sea-level policies. In the worst cases, individual properties have lost up to 52 per cent of their market value

In three years, individual Eurobodalla properties lost about $40,000 in value. With 22,000 properties in the shire, this represents a capital loss of $880m at a rate of $293m a year. This steady loss of rateable value means householders will face higher rate increases.

If you own a home near the sea, you might want to send this sort of information to your councilors:

Queensland Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney recently notified Moreton Bay Regional Council of his intention to direct it to amend its draft planning scheme “to remove any assumption about a theoretical projected sea level rise due to climate change from all and any provisions of the scheme”. Seeney said his intention was to use a statewide coastal mapping scheme “that will remove the ‘one size fits all’ approach that incorporates a mandatory 0.8m addition to historical data”.

At last, a responsible government has recognised that global average sea-level change is no more relevant to coastal management than average global temperatures are to the design of residential heating and cooling systems — local weather and local sea-level change is what matters.

REFERENCE:

P. J. Watson (2011) Is There Evidence Yet of Acceleration in Mean Sea Level Rise around Mainland Australia?. Journal of Coastal Research: Volume 27, Issue 2: pp. 368 – 377. doi: 10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00141.1 [Link Abstract PDF ]

White, Neil J., Haigh, Ivan D., Church, John A., Koen, Terry, Watson, Christopher S., Pritchard, Tim R., Watson, Phil J., Burgette, Reed J., McInnes, Kathleen L., You, Zai-Jin, Zhang, Xuebin, Tregoning, Paul: (2014) Australian Sea Levels – Trends, Regional Variability and Influencing Factors, Earth Science Reviews, doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2014.05.011
OBD - do you understand the difference between sea level rise (AKA speed or velocity) and rate of rise (AKA Acceleration) If you posted this article in hopes of throwing doubt on the projection that sea level will rise - on this point - you are mistaken and do not demonstrate the most basic understanding of science.
 
Read all the report, then tell is what the reccomendations were and if in fact they did them.
They knew there would be flooding in the future as in the past.
Again, nothing to do with MAN MADE global warming.
It is called the pineapple express.



Was that a once every 20 year flood? How about the flood we had in January 2010?? Was that another once every 20 year flood? so many once every 20 year flood and now a once every 100 year flood. Whats next a once every 200 year flood?

Like I said.... the data is there if you want to prove your point.
Back Sunday night.........
 
In my job and my interest – I am constantly translating information. Over the years, I have learned to try to understand the other sides point of view in order to be more effective in targeting the message. In that vein – I wish to try to provide an alternative view for OBD and any other so-called climate deniers trolling these forums. So – I am approaching this from a business point of view.

Businesses, engineers, financial consultants and many other industries use risk management to make decisions. Risk is assessed as a multiplication of likelihood times consequence. If the estimate of likelihood is low, BUT the consequence is high – that estimation of risk can still be high. Let me give some examples.

People take-out RRSPs and other pension programs because there is a risk that our old age pension wont cut it when we retire. It makes good sense to do so, if you can afford it. People lock their car doors, because the livelihood is low, but often the consequences are large if someone steals stuff out of their cars. If an engineer says the risk is high that a type of failure will occur – the project is redesigned due to environmental or financial risks. We use this kind of risk management all the time in our lives.

Think of the threat of global warming or climate change as a risk assessment process. Even if the likelihood is low (and it is NOT – but we can argue that point later) – the consequences are admittedly high – for everyone.

If we act early – the costs to reduce that risk are reduced. IN ADDITION – we extend the hydrocarbon supply (or timing of using up those supplies) AND we provide much-needed economic development in the development of critical infrastructure for alternative energy sources. Jobs, jobs, jobs – right Isnt that the mantra of business...

IN ADDITION - Many of these projected effects of global climate change will cost us BILLIONS of dollars in lost revenue and costs. People arguing for staus quo and doing nothing while we fine-tune the details of haw fast the sea levels rise are doing a great disservice to everyone.
 
Read all the report, then tell is what the reccomendations were and if in fact they did them.
They knew there would be flooding in the future as in the past.
Again, nothing to do with MAN MADE global warming.
It is called the pineapple express.
and denying climate change is real and largely caused by human activities is riding the coconut express..
 
Our most accurate global temperatures are from satellites, and they show little or no warming. Temperatures are far below climate model forecasts.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    57.7 KB · Views: 10
No, you were one of the ones that said there is NO Discussion allowed.
You said science was done and the IPPC is correct.
You believe that co2 is the problem
You believe that MAN is responsible for the percieved warming.

You believe that there should be no opinions but yours.
Well, there are other opinions and facts.





In my job and my interest – I am constantly translating information. Over the years, I have learned to try to understand the other sides point of view in order to be more effective in targeting the message. In that vein – I wish to try to provide an alternative view for OBD and any other so-called climate deniers trolling these forums. So – I am approaching this from a business point of view.

Businesses, engineers, financial consultants and many other industries use risk management to make decisions. Risk is assessed as a multiplication of likelihood times consequence. If the estimate of likelihood is low, BUT the consequence is high – that estimation of risk can still be high. Let me give some examples.

People take-out RRSPs and other pension programs because there is a risk that our old age pension wont cut it when we retire. It makes good sense to do so, if you can afford it. People lock their car doors, because the livelihood is low, but often the consequences are large if someone steals stuff out of their cars. If an engineer says the risk is high that a type of failure will occur – the project is redesigned due to environmental or financial risks. We use this kind of risk management all the time in our lives.

Think of the threat of global warming or climate change as a risk assessment process. Even if the likelihood is low (and it is NOT – but we can argue that point later) – the consequences are admittedly high – for everyone.

If we act early – the costs to reduce that risk are reduced. IN ADDITION – we extend the hydrocarbon supply (or timing of using up those supplies) AND we provide much-needed economic development in the development of critical infrastructure for alternative energy sources. Jobs, jobs, jobs – right Isnt that the mantra of business...

IN ADDITION - Many of these projected effects of global climate change will cost us BILLIONS of dollars in lost revenue and costs. People arguing for staus quo and doing nothing while we fine-tune the details of haw fast the sea levels rise are doing a great disservice to everyone.
 
e Australian Bob Carter compares the long term tide gauge record in Sydney with projections, and exposes the exorbitant cost of insurance for alarmist sea level forecasts. The good news is that it appears councils are waking up, and “peak-sea-level-panic” is behind us.





OBD - do you understand the difference between sea level rise (AKA speed or velocity) and rate of rise (AKA Acceleration) If you posted this article in hopes of throwing doubt on the projection that sea level will rise - on this point - you are mistaken and do not demonstrate the most basic understanding of science.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    80 KB · Views: 19
...Well, there are other opinions and facts.

I’ll go with the facts based upon evidence from the peer reviewed science that says global warming is real and caused by human activity over the opinion of an anonymous Internet troll with no credible evidence whatsoever. Here is some of the evidence that this heating is caused by human activities -adding massive amounts of CO2 (by burning carbon that used to be buried in the earth) to the atmosphere.

10 lines of evidence that humans are causing global warming / climate change by burning carbon
(taken from http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html ) There you will find references to the scientific papers backing these claims, and where available, links to the papers themselves.

1. Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

2. Oxygen levels are falling as if carbon is being burned to create carbon dioxide.

3. Fossil carbon is building up in the atmosphere. (We know this because the two types of carbon have different chemical properties.)

4. Corals show that fossil carbon has recently risen sharply.

5. Satellites measure less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths which CO2 absorbs.

6. Surface measurements find this heat is returning to Earth to warm the surface.

7. An increased greenhouse effect would make nights warm faster than days, and this is what has been observed.

8. If the warming is due to solar activity, then the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) should warm along with the rest of the atmosphere. But if the warming is due to the greenhouse effect, the stratosphere should cool because of the heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere). Satellite measurements show that the stratosphere is cooling.

9. This combination of a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere should cause the tropopause, which separates them, to rise. This has also been observed.

10.It was predicted that the ionosphere would shrink, and it is indeed shrinking.

Please visit http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php to review the facts and the flaws in the arguments of the climate change (which includes global warming) deniers.
 
No, you were one of the ones that said there is NO Discussion allowed....You believe that there should be no opinions but yours...
OBD - I cant help but think you have been taking some medicines that are contraindicated. Show me where I have ever said that.
 
So, satellites are ok to use??
Yet, they say there has been NO GLOBAL WARMING IN 18 yrs plus???
So what are you talking about??



I’ll go with the facts based upon evidence from the peer reviewed science that says global warming is real and caused by human activity over the opinion of an anonymous Internet troll with no credible evidence whatsoever. Here is some of the evidence that this heating is caused by human activities -adding massive amounts of CO2 (by burning carbon that used to be buried in the earth) to the atmosphere.

10 lines of evidence that humans are causing global warming / climate change by burning carbon
(taken from http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html ) There you will find references to the scientific papers backing these claims, and where available, links to the papers themselves.

1. Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

2. Oxygen levels are falling as if carbon is being burned to create carbon dioxide.

3. Fossil carbon is building up in the atmosphere. (We know this because the two types of carbon have different chemical properties.)

4. Corals show that fossil carbon has recently risen sharply.

5. Satellites measure less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths which CO2 absorbs.

6. Surface measurements find this heat is returning to Earth to warm the surface.

7. An increased greenhouse effect would make nights warm faster than days, and this is what has been observed.

8. If the warming is due to solar activity, then the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) should warm along with the rest of the atmosphere. But if the warming is due to the greenhouse effect, the stratosphere should cool because of the heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere). Satellite measurements show that the stratosphere is cooling.

9. This combination of a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere should cause the tropopause, which separates them, to rise. This has also been observed.

10.It was predicted that the ionosphere would shrink, and it is indeed shrinking.

Please visit http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php to review the facts and the flaws in the arguments of the climate change (which includes global warming) deniers.
 
So, you are saying that there is another opinion?

OBD - I cant help but think you have been taking some medicines that are contraindicated. Show me where I have ever said that.
 
If CO2 is not the main driver of global temperatures, what is? The sun?
When global temperatures are the question, the answer is not the sun or
CO2. It is the sun, volcanoes, tilt of the Earth’s axis, water vapor,
methane, clouds, ocean cycles, plate tectonics, shifting ocean currents,
albedo (Earth’s changing reflective properties), atmospheric dust,
atmospheric circulation, cosmic rays, particulates like carbon soot and
volcanic dust, forests and grasslands, urban and other land use changes.
Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, not just CO2.
 
97% of scientists say manmade climate change is real.
The claim that “97% of scientists agree” is in part based on 77
anonymous scientists who responded to a survey. The survey started by
seeking opinions from 10,257 scientists. However, only 77 responded. So
the 97% “consensus” claim is not based on thousands of scientists or
even hundreds of scientists – but only on 77. Out of those 77
scientists, 75 answered the survey to form the mythical 97% “consensus.”
In 2013 and 2014, other claims of an alleged 97% climate ‘consensus’
emerged, prompting UN IPCC lead author Dr. Richard Tol to publish a
critique and declare: ‘The 97% is essentially pulled from thin air, it
is not based on any credible research whatsoever
 
UN Climate Talks Fail To Break 20-Year Old Deadlock

Date: 13/12/14 Associated Press
Already well into overtime, U.N. climate talks reached a standstill Saturday as developing countries rejected a draft deal they said would allow rich countries to shirk their responsibilities to fight global warming and pay for its impacts.

The main goal for the two-week session in Lima was relatively modest: Reach agreement on what information should go into the pledges that countries submit for a global climate pact expected to be adopted next year in Paris.

But even that became complicated as several developing nations rejected a draft decision they said blurred the distinction between what rich and poor countries can be expected to do.

“We have deadlock,” Chinese negotiator Liu Zhenmin told the conference, siding with Malaysiaand other developing countries that rejected the draft.

U.S. representative Todd Stern said he was open to tweaking the language, but warned against lengthy negotiations, noting that the conference had already passed its scheduled Friday close.

“Failing to produce the decision before us will be seen as a serious breakdown,” which could put the Paris agreement and the entire U.N. process at risk, Stern said.

The momentum from last month’s joint U.S.-China deal on emissions targets faded quickly in Lima as rifts reopened over who should do what to fight global warming.

Developed countries want the pledges to focus on emissions cuts, while developing nations also want to see commitments of financial support. Some small island states at risk of being flooded by rising seas also complained the draft made no mention of a “loss and damage” mechanism agreed upon in last year’s talks in Poland.

“We need a permanent arrangement to help the poorest of the world,” said Ian Fry, negotiator for the Pacific Island nation of Tuvalu.

Meanwhile, top carbon polluter China and other major developing countries opposed plans for a review process that would allow the pledges to be compared against one another before Paris.

Though negotiating tactics always play a role, virtually all disputes in the U.N. talks reflect the wider issue of how to divide the burden of fixing the planetary warming that scientists say results from human activity, primarily the burning of oil, coal and natural gas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top